Joe Rogers: Trump the bully vs. Trump the troll

Bullies are the scourge of the real world; trolls the bane of the Internet. Donald Trump is a wholly unpleasant mix of both, which makes it all the harder to deal with him. Pundits and armchair shrinks have tossed out various theories to explain his electoral rise, variously blaming a celebrity-fascinated public, xenophobic or quietly racist Republican politics, even President Obama. (Trump, the blustery loose cannon, being the anti-Obama.) Whatever the causes, the Trump phenomenon exists, and he seems impervious to the normal rules of politics or of common decency. Which are occasionally the same thing. Trolls - in the current, non-Tolkien sense - are those little people who seek to sow discord in online settings and inflate their own self-importance by posting inflammatory comments. They typically hide behind a cloak of anonymity, which is why I've never attached any merit to their criticism. If you don't have the guts to attach your name to what you say, why should anyone care? Trump is hardly anonymous. But he's a troll in that he uses the Internet - specifically his Twitter account - to ridicule and scorn anyone or any notion that he takes issue with. No one and no thing is safe, from commentators ("George Will is a political moron") to rivals ("Little Marco Rubio, the lightweight no show Senator from Florida") to Diet Coke ("Let's face it - this stuff just doesn't work. It makes you hungry."). He's also a bully in that he berates and belittles people with his spoken words, too, all in an effort to bring attention to himself and demonstrate his intellectual superiority. He does so both individually - the totally inconsequential Ben Carson gets lumped with child molesters - and by entire group: Mexican immigrants are criminals, rapists. The problem is, the advice for dealing with trolls and the advice for dealing with bullies are precise opposites. Trolls, who take delight in getting under someone else's skin, are best ignored. Any response is validation. Bullies, who we are given to understand are actually cowards behind the facade, are best confronted. (There is, as usual, an excellent "Andy Griffith Show" episode on this very subject, in which Opie gets a black eye but triumphs over the menacing new kid in town.) Trump's Republican opponents have tried both approaches. First, they ignored him, in the firm belief that he would simply melt away and they could harvest his supporters whom they had avoided offending. He did not melt away. More recently, they have decided to take him on, most specifically Marco Rubio, who seems determined to run Trump onto the sidelines by out-Trumping him. "Little Marco" has elevated the presidential conversation by suggesting that Trump's hands are small (wink, wink) and that his tan is sprayed on. Judging by Super Tuesday results (Trump seven states, Rubio one) these comments have not been devastating. Democrats, meanwhile, haven't had to come up with an approach. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have enough on their hands with each other. But the realization seems to be dawning in the Clinton camp that Trump just might win the Republican nomination, and it would be helpful to have a plan of attack. That plan: suggest that Trump's temper makes him dangerous. Bill Clinton, even President Obama, will help deliver the message. The Republican establishment, meanwhile, is suddenly falling all over itself trying to find a way to stop Trump. There are plans for expensive TV advertising campaigns to slow his delegate progress, with the expectation of a possible knock-down, drag-out at the convention this summer. Even the decorous Mitt Romney has entered the fray, saying the other day that Trump is "playing the American public for suckers." Who knows whether any of it will work. A political party tends to get the candidates it deserves.

Joe Rogers, a native of Moss Point, is a staff editor for The New York Times. He lives in New Hyde Park, N.Y., and can be reached at jrogink@gmail.com and on Twitter @jrogink.